This article has its origins in two evaluation assignments that I have been involved in during recent years. The first was a review of the feedback procedures of aid agencies in all the member states of the European Union (Cracknell, 1991). This was carried out in conjunction with Dr Hellmut Eggers, then the head of the Evaluation Unit in Directorate General VIII of the European Commission, and his successor Mr Franco Nicora. The second was a study of the role that an evaluation unit can play as an input to organizational learning, which was part of a broader study of organizational learning in development co-operation, commissioned by the Swedish Expert Group on Development Issues and published by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Forss et al., 1998). It seemed to me that the two studies were intimately related since the feedback from evaluation studies must surely be an important foundation block of any learning organization. So the aim of this article is to review the effectiveness of existing feedback procedures in development aid evaluation, with special emphasis on the role of feedback in helping aid organizations to learn. That is the main aim, but I want to set it in the context of the rapidly changing policy environment in which aid programmes in this country and elsewhere are now operating. The latter include new modes of aid delivery, the decentralization of aid administration, the setting of policy targets and monitoring progress, and the trend from the older style of ‘blueprint’ project planning, towards a more participatory approach.

This article examines the factors that influence whether the acquisition of knowledge leads on to action. It looks first at the `supply' side, i.e. the kind of knowledge that is being acquired and whether it meets the needs of the intended users and is conducive to actin; whether knowledge is a product or a process; the relevance of the positivist and constructivist approaches in this context; and whether participatory methods are required. The article then turns to the `demand' side, and looks at possible reasons why decision-takers may often seem to ignore new knowledge and evaluation findings. It suggests that evaluators may sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the kind of impact their reports should have. On the other hand there are factors leading to inertia and risk averseness that may stymie action. The importance of a `knowledge culture' is emphasized if knowledge is to be turned into action. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

The article explores the dilemma facing evaluators of development aid (as indeed of most other topics), namely, whether to give priority to accountability or lesson-learning as the main objective. It reviews the strengths and weaknesses of donor evaluation practices, and finds a strength of aid evaluation has been its role in improving agency performance in terms of the achievement of development targets (i.e. as distinct from the efficiency of aid delivery), exemplified by the current trend towards more impact evaluation. Another strength has been the forging of a closer relationship between evaluation and project-cycle management, through the use of the Logical Framework sequence. The main weaknesses are inadequate feedback, and a failure to involve the stakeholders in evaluations. The article recommends that there should be more flexible use of the Logical Framework, involving the beneficiaries at all stages, and that specific measures should be taken to ensure feedback at the policy level.

There have been substantial improvements in the monitoring and evaluation of public-sector investment in the UK during the last decade, thanks largely to the importance attached to it at prime ministerial level during the 1980s. The Treasury performs a key co-ordinating and motivating role, whilst not attempting to standardise methods or procedures. It is widely accepted (although difficult to prove) that all this investment of effort and resources has resulted in significant improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of public-sector investment. There is still plenty of scope for further improvements, notably in the fields of more systematic project-cycle management, better evaluation methodologies, and more effective feedback of the results.

Many aid organisations are shifting the responsibilities for development activities from the donor to the recipient and the types of aid from identifiable development activities (projects/programmes) towards non-identifiable activities (financial instruments). These moves make aid less demanding administratively. The institutional needs for evaluations and the division of responsibilities between donor and recipient under these changing circumstances are discussed with reference to a recent study of Norwegian aid. Evaluations need to be diversified corresponding to which management level they should serve. It is suggested that the responsibility for evaluations should be decentralised from the policy level to the executive level and below.

Evaluation feedback is now beginning to gain in importance among aid agencies. The materials available for feedback and the methods used are examined. Evaluation reports are now of a high standard and there is a need to ensure that they are effective in improving aid performance by ensuring that the feedback loop is complete.

Public Administration and DevelopmentVolume 10, Issue 3 p. 373-373 Book Review Third world development: Aspects of political legitimacy and viability. Tri Q. Nguyen Associated University Press, London and Toronto, 1989, 221 pp. Basil E. Cracknell, Basil E. Cracknell Wye Evaluation ConsultantsSearch for more papers by this author Basil E. Cracknell, Basil E. Cracknell Wye Evaluation ConsultantsSearch for more papers by this author First published: July/September 1990 https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230100318AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume10, Issue3July/September 1990Pages 373-373 RelatedInformation

Public Administration and DevelopmentVolume 10, Issue 1 p. 119-120 Book Review Development administration and U.S. Foreign AID policy; Studies in development management Dennis A. Rondinelli. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder and London; published in the USA, 1987, 188 pp. Dr. Basil Cracknell, Dr. Basil Cracknell Evaluation Consultant, and Associate of Institute of Development Studies at the University of SussexSearch for more papers by this author Dr. Basil Cracknell, Dr. Basil Cracknell Evaluation Consultant, and Associate of Institute of Development Studies at the University of SussexSearch for more papers by this author First published: January/March 1990 https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230100112AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume10, Issue1January/March 1990Pages 119-120 RelatedInformation

The Logical Framework system for project appraisal is now an integral part of the work of the ODA. It is important that it becomes an instinctive pattern of thinking, so continuous training is necessary to ensure that the technique is successful.

AbstractThree phases of development of the subject of evaluation are identified. Up to 1979 it was still in its infancy, with the main impetus coming from the USA (the World Bank and US AID), and from one or two large UN organizations, although the OECD also did some useful work in bringing evaluators together.The second phase (1979‐1984) saw rapid ‘take‐off’, with greatly increased resources going into evaluation work, and a veritable ‘explosion’ of interest worldwide. All the main donors had by now set up evaluation units and were amassing enough material to begin to ‘synthesize’ the findings. The OECD provided a focus and a forum through its Expert Group on Aid Evaluation.The third phase, from 1984 onwards, finds the subject having ‘come of age’, its maturity being marked by the publication of major works such as Cassen's Does Aid Work?. The emphasis now is switching from ex‐post evaluation towards improving project design through such techniques as the logical framework.

Hitherto there has been a tendency for project appraisal to be regarded as the last stage in project work: but to be effective the basic principles of appraisal, e.g. discounting, shadow pricing, evaluation of secondary benefits, etc., must be applied at all stages and especially in the initial selection of projects and suitable technologies. Recognition of this has led donors to adopt the sector approach in which projects “grow out of” the continuous process of examining national and sector programmes. The ultimate objective of donors must be to encourage developing countries to use the right appraisal procedures in making their own investment decisions.